AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 198 wordsPrafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.
Learned Counsel for the complainant States that parties to the matrimony have entered into compromise, and offence punishable u/s 323 IPC, for which the conviction, and sentence of the revisionist was affirmed by the trial court has been compounded. Smt. Radhika Devi (complainant) wife of Shyam Singh identified by her counsel is present in person in court. She verified the compromise filed with the compounding application No. 668 of 2011.
In the above circumstances, the compromise application No. 669 of 2011, moved by the revisionist Shyam and complainant Radhika Devi (injured/complainant) is allowed. (Said application is supported by affidavits of both the parties).
In view of the compounding of the offence this revision directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2007, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in criminal appeal No. 31 of 2005, deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2007, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in criminal appeal No. 31 of 2005, and judgment and order dated 22.08.2005, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in criminal case No. 655 of 2003, are hereby set aside. Revisionist Shyam Singh stands acquitted from all the charges.